Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The use of XML syntax in XML Query
- From: "Julian Reschke" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:38:05 +0100
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: David Orchard [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:14 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Robie'; 'Julian Reschke'; 'Evan Lenz'; 'David Carlisle'
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The use of XML syntax in XML Query
> The terms namespace URI and namespace name are equivalent. I did some
> research on this a little while ago. Turns out that there was an
> effort to
> unify these terms to namespace name, but it didn't really happen.
> I believe
> namespace name is the correct term as per xml namespace and xpath.
> Personally, I prefer namespace name rather than namespace URI as
> URI is the
> data type. I like to refer to things by names (even namespace
> names) rather
> than by value.
So do I. But the datatype is NOT URI, it's a URI reference.
> Imagine if we had let namespaces contain relative URIs, then we'd have to
They are allowed, just "deprecated" by a separate note.
> change all of our terminology to namespace URI references. And then if we
It *is* a URI reference. Just because the W3C later decided that relative
URI references shouldn't be used doesn't make every legal namespace name a
For instance, the namespace name "http://greenbytes.com#reference" is
perfectly ok (it's not relative), yet it's a URI reference, not a URI. Thus
(as you said), I think it's wrong to talk about the "namespace URI". It may
not be a URI.